Panzer doc IV Stufe

[Ian Jewison]

Actually isn't 73 days too early for this award? Only by 2 days but that means he has not met the requirement for the 4th grade?

I Stufe - 3 days
II Stufe - 25 days
III Stufe - 50 days
IV Stufe - 75 days
IV (V) Stufe - 100 days

!?!?!?!?!!?!

/Ian

[Don D.]

Unless he was severely wounded. I thought the commander had some leeway here????
Don

[Angel Farré]

I think that only award when the number of days required can be lkowered was the CCC and only if the wound was so severe that the soldier can't be posted again in a combat unit.

I have seen some documents to CCCiB winners that received it with less than 15 combat days due to amputation, but in their awards appears 15 combat days no 13 or 12.

I have seen in a friends collection an officer group awarded the CCCiS with 27 days after he suffered the amputation of one of his legs, he has the official days page with the 27 days registered and stamped and also the award citation and stated that is for 30, I suppose that the clerk just received a list of awardees and he fullfill the documents with the regulation days so many of the soldiers will have some more days and others no, unafortunately.

Commonly I see with more days, but never with less.

Angel

[Denis]

Hello

It seems that the Führer Pz.Jäg. Abt. 1 existed as Akira mentioned it, based on the entry related to Bergmann's DKiG. From my side, I couldn't find any reference to this unit (whether in the Führer-Begleit-Division or in the Führer-Grenadier-Division). I have looked in Nafziger's and in Heimdal's books.
As Simon said, the only Panzerjäger unit listed for these 2 divisions was Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 (belonging to the FBD). I have tried to have more details about this unit.
It was created in February, 1945 from St.Gesch.Abt. 200 (for this latter one, see http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/...teilung200.htm ). The Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 was destroyed in the Spremberg kassel (cauldron) in April, 1945 (see http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/...rerBeglDiv.htm )

Nafziger provides the following information for Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 :
1 battalion staff 1 battalion staff company (12 LMGs and 3 quad 20mm)
3 Jagdpanzer companies (10 Jagdpanzers ea)
1 (mot.) supply company (5 LMGs)

He also specifies an important point for our case :
"30 Panther tanks were delivered between 8 and 10 February. The 1/102nd Panzer Regiment was orderd formed on February 16, 1945. It was to have 2 Panther Companies, with 14 tanks each, and 2 PzMk IV Companies , also with 14 tanks each. The 2/Grossdeutschland Panzer Regiment was then formally renamed the 2/1st Führer Panzer Regiment, and a 673rd Panzerjäger Battalion was assigned to serve as the regiment 's 2nd battalion."
(Please note that I have type exactly what wrote Mr Nafziger and I resepcted thoroughly his way to name the German units).

If I understood everything and to try to summarize a little bit :
From the St.Ges.Abt. 200 (belonging to the 21. Pz.Div.), the German command created the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 which was assigned to the Führer-Begleit-Division. The Panzer unit for this latter division was Panzer-Regiment 102, created in January 1945, from the II/Pz.Rgt. "Grossdeutschland". The unit was renamed Führer-Panzer-Regiment 1 in March 1945. If we take into account Georg Nafziger's comments, the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 would have been incorporated in the Führer-Panzer-Regiment 1, becoming the 2nd battalion.

Would we suppose that the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 incorporated in the Führer-Panzer-Regiment 1 kept his "Jäger" prefix as a kind of reminder ? Why not ? However, 2 points arise :

- If the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 became the 2nd battalion, I find strange that the unit mentioned on the document was the third company. The 3rd Kp. should belong to the 1st battalion which are numbered from 1 to 4 (ie the previous II/Pz.Rgt. "GD"). The units coming from the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 and part of the 2nd battalion should be numbered from 5 onwards.
- I don't understand why the unit is mentioned as being an Abteilung and the signatory's function is "Regt. Kommandeur" ? This doesn't make sense and is not logical

Regarding the regulation that I mentioned yesterday, this was AHM 44, #702 from December 21, 1944. Basically, it said that St.Gesch. units received the GAB. From December 1, 1944, crews of Stug. III, Stug. IV, Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger (and those latter ones only) are allowed to receive the PAB in Silver. Consequently, if this unit was made of Jagdpanzer (Nafziger) or Jagdpanther (like Simon said), the bestowal of the PAB in Silver was compliant with the latest issued regulations.

By the way, who has a clue a on the signatory's name ??

I wait for other members' comments. This investigation work is quite funny.
Best regards
Denis

[F L Clemens]

- If the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 became the 2nd battalion, I find strange that the unit mentioned on the document was the third company. The 3rd Kp. should belong to the 1st battalion which are numbered from 1 to 4 (ie the previous II/Pz.Rgt. "GD"). The units coming from the Pz.Jäg.Abt. 673 and part of the 2nd battalion should be numbered from 5 onwards.
- I don't understand why the unit is mentioned as being an Abteilung and the signatory's function is "Regt. Kommandeur" ? This doesn't make sense and is not logical

Denis, assuming the document is real, the two points you raise are easily covered.

- If the PJA kept its identity as a PJA within the FPR, then it is reasonable that the company numbering remained the same as an independent Abteilung. Put another way - the Panzer-Abt and the PzJgrAbt were put together into FPR1, however they were called FPA1 and FJPA1, NOT I./FPR1 and II./FPR1.

- The level of the award meant it was bumped up to a regimental level for signing, in this case the commander of FPR1, as I read it, Major Sonnenmans (an ethnically Dutch name).

It is a shame that the Dienstsiegel is a mismatch, however the unit heritage does suggest it is still valid. One can imagine that the situation was a little hectic to have the new Dienstsiegel made.

Can anyone look up Sonnenmans in a Rangliste? To become the commander of FPR1, he must have been someone with at least the DKG, I would think! I will try to look up his personnel file this weekend. Personally, the name is not familiar to me.

PS I still reserve some suspicion about this, but you have to admit, it is a very elaborate fake, if it is one.

[Simon O.]

- If the PJA kept its identity as a PJA within the FPR, then it is reasonable that the company numbering remained the same as an independent Abteilung. Put another way - the Panzer-Abt and the PzJgrAbt were put together into FPR1, however they were called FPA1 and FJPA1, NOT I./FPR1 and II./FPR1.

I agree, i have seen other cases where a jagdpanzer abt. was assigned as a pz.rgt's second abt. but kept it's designation.

According to Spaeter and Das Ritterkreuz Major George Schnappauf was kommandeur of the Pz.Rgt. at the end.

http://www.das-ritterkreuz.de/index_...26&searchword=

The information on the unit being equipped with the Jagdpanther came from the Lexikon der Wehrmacht
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/...wPzJAbt673.htm

[F L Clemens]

Thanks, Simon, Schnappauf is a lot more well-known, one internet source has him as previously with PR1 as late as Mar/Apr 45. (Guess I will have to check for his file too.) Now the mystery is who Sonnenmans or Sonnenmaus is, and why he would have signed it, unless he preceded Schnappauf as commander.

[Simon O.]

To add a little more.

According to Jentz in Panzer Truppen Vol.2 "Panzer-Jaeger-Abteilung 673 was assigned to the Panzer Regiment in place of a second Panzer-Abteilung. On 2 March 1945, the II.Abteilung/Panzer Regiment "Grossdeutschland" was renamed II.Abteilung/Fuehrer-Panzer-Regiment 1."

[Denis]

Hello
So Philippe, what is your decision about this document :
to buy or not to buy ??
Regards
Denis

[Philippe DB]

Hi Denis,


Well I thought long and hard over it but at the end decided to pass on it. I guess I'm not enough of a doc collector to invest the kind of money involved here in to a little piece of paper.

It always amazes me how much information you guys are able to come up with in researching documents but on the other hand it's not the first time that no conclusions are reached.

It's a bit the same here, nobody calls it a fake but nobody stands up and calls it original. I can imagin that it is far from easy to research these very late units but taken in to account how seldom these type of docs surface it's a bit of a shame that no definitive conclusions seem possible.

Many thanks for all your assistance, much appreciated.

KR
Philippe

[Simon O.]

As you say Philipp stuff from the last weeks of the war can be difficult to impossible to pin down due to the confused nature of the situation on many fronts, the many ad-hoc, new and re-constituted units which sprang up and the lack of surviving records from the time.

Something like this needs to be seen by a specialist in the history of the GD and it's offspring units, it requires resources and knowledge beyond the regular published research materials.

This kind of thing does have it's plusses though. If you specialise, like i do with my North Norway stuff and can actually get hold of the necessary unpublished information from the archives..if it still exists, then it's the best way possible of spotting the good from the bad.